River Valley Blogs

Joan wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:46 AM:

" To my obsessed tormentor: That is a good start. Indeed, it is sometimes not what you say but how you say it. On this blog, however, we can only see what is said. I fully intend to keep my end of the bargain if you finish your task. Please pick out one or two posts of mine and state exactly why what I said (or how I said it?)made you think I was a man. Sorry, saying "all of your posts" just isn't good enough. I want specifics. This is just for my own reference-after all, I don't want people that I encounter in life thinking I talk like a man :) "

Luscious Johnny to anonymous Joan responder wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:19 AM:

" Did you hear that over the last couple days? Listen real close....its the sound of the troll that went "plop". Looks like its time to move on, eh? "

To Joan and your other supporter wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:03 AM:

" Do you even know what a "troll" is? A "troll" isn't after the truth. I am... "

To Joan wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Well, I see they didn't print the first part of my response to you for whatever reason. I believe I caught you lying about your gender. I based my thoughts on your responses. It doesn't matter how you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar whether it was your mom or the police. What your doing is wrong. It isn't always "what you say", sometimes it's "how you say it". There, now I've had my say like you wanted. You agreed with "your friendly other poster" so now let's get to the truth, shall we? (now you can insert my nine seventeen pm post here). The offer still stands. If I'm wrong I'll apologize and leave the site. If your wrong, I would expect you to do the same. Now, after several weeks the ball is in your court. "

To Joan and your friend cont... wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Let's just keep this between you and I and Jimmy for the truth. Instead of stonewalling any longer why don't you just be honest? Be a real woman if that's what you are! "

To Joan and your friend wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:15 PM:

" My deductive reasoning is all of your posts. I believe I caught you in a lie. It doesn't matter how. If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar by your mom or the police it doesn't matter. What you did was wrong. I'm calling you out as a liar and gave you a fair way to prove your point. I said if I was wrong what I would do. I meant it. I'm so sure that your a liar that I'm willing to let Jimmy help. If your not lying you shouldn't have anything to hide. You shouldn't have to hide behind another poster either, if in fact it really is. If your doing both postings my opinion is that your also a Psycho in addition to a liar. You shouldn't need anyone's help to prove who you are. "

Joan wrote on Aug 29, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Agreed. The ball is now in my tormentors hand. "

Joans Friend wrote on Aug 29, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Joan, that is a very fair offer. I suggest since we are at the end of the month, right before a holiday, that if he doesn't state why he thinks what he thinks, we just call it quits. If you can't educate the troll, ignore it. So, troll, what will it be? Can you state your case as to why you think Joan is a man? Try building an actual case. Use deductive reasoning, rather than your favorite phrase "see previous posts". "

Joan wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:51 AM:

" As I stated before, I will only agree to do this if you cite your reasons for suspecting I am a man. That is only fair, right? "

To Joan and your friend wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Lets clear this little lie of your's up once and for all. Send your info to Jimmy and he can let me know the truth. Just e-mail it to him and he can e-mail me back with the answer to keep it private. If your a woman I'll apologize and leave this blog and if your a liar like I think you are you do the same. How about it? "

Hey guys...and gals wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:49 PM:

" Did you know people are talking about you on another blog? No one can figure out where Joan pretends to be a woman.... "

To To Joan wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:20 PM:

" You said re-read the posts. I did, and it looks like Joan is indeed a woman, based on the posts. Glad we got that cleared up. "

Joan wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:24 AM:

" You're right. I didn't forget. I just re-read the posts and you never said. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:08 PM:

" You didn't "forget". Your a liar and you know it. Re-read the posts, that might jog your memory. And maybe someday when you get old enough you can buy your own computer and not have to use a libraries... "

to to three fourty.... wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Are you sure you aren't the one with gender confusion? I mean, look at your last post! In the same post, you alternate between talking "about" Joan in the 3rd person and addressing her directly. I also just realized I am posting within about an hour of Joan, which I am sure will cause you to think I am Joan. When all is said and done, you are going to be one confused pussycat. I will make it simple: she asked you a straightforward question. Your response should determine who is actually being deceitful....good luck to you. "

Joan wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:08 AM:

" I forget, why do you think I am not a woman? "

To three forty one pm poster wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:39 PM:

" No HE didn't. Joan is the only man I know with that name. Why don't you tell everyone why you have to lie about being a woman? Is it to make it seem like more people agree with your opinion? Very dishonest Joan. "

I think wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Joan is a sociopath, just like cagefighter. Probably wishes he was really a girl but doesn't want to go through the procedure. "

To To Joan wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:41 PM:

" She got you there, bubba. "

Joan wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Good-bye, anonymous poster. I guess it will forever remain a mystery why you think I was lying. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Your lying about being a woman and you know it. Re-read my last several posts. Obviously, your still lying to yourself and everyone else. Oh well, you have to live with yourself and your lies. It's too late for you though. The truth is out there. The next time you quote a Commodores song at least do it with honesty. Bye, Bye, Joan Stonewall. "

Joan wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:35 AM:

" When was I not honest and when did I lie to myself? "

To Joan wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:05 AM:

" And I will leave you with this. You were not honest in your posts and it took all of this for you to recognize that. Remember, you can lie to anyone you want but you should stop lying to yourself... "

Joan wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Fair enough. We'll leave it at that. But, I will leave you with the thought that I am in a position to know, and you are not. It's like momma always used to say: "Sometimes it just beeeez that way." "

To Joan wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:33 PM:

" Your getting more pathetic with each post... "

Joan wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:58 AM:

" I thought you may raise that as an issue, and I almost offered that explanation(in parenthesis)at the end of my last post. What I decided to do instead is withhold that information until you answer some of my questions, like whether you claiming I am not a woman was just a hunch, or whether there were actual words or phrases in my posts which led you to believe that. I realized I am the one answering all the questions here, like I am on trial. I would like more give and take, so answer some of my questions, and I can shed some light on your "library hours" dilemma. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:05 PM:

" It's interesting that on the Internet you can be anybody you want. You could be "Joan". You could be "Planet Stasiak." You could be "cagefighter". You could even be Ron Violette. Since you're a logic guy and so am I, I tried to get you to reveal your gender through your registration. Now you tell me that you use a computer at your local library. Using logic, I looked at the timing of your postings. Most of them occurred BEFORE nine am. All of the local libraries in this area open AFTER nine am. Would you care to tell me the library that you're posting from so I can call them to verify their hours? Since you're trying to bring logic into this and claiming to be honest, this should be no problem. "

Joan wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:50 AM:

" Sorry, that would do no good. I use the computer at my local library. If you are so good at debate, why not state SPECIFICALLY what makes you think I am not a woman, and why you think I post minutes later pretending to be someone else? If it is just a hunch, admit it. If you have proof, let's hear it. I will state once more: I only post under my actual first name, and I am indeed a woman. And logic will tell you-I am the only one in a position to know that, not you. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 14, 2008 10:55 PM:

" Interesting that you bring up logic 101 too. I did take that course at UWL. Also, I'm really good at debate too. Now, you seem to be back peddling to the point of posting minutes later trying to make us all think your someone else again. Instead of continuing your little charade and continuing to lie about being a woman, why don't we prove it one way or the other? Of course YOU can't prove it on here but the monitor can by your registration on here. Should we just ask Jimmy if he can settle this to determine who is lying and who isn't? I'm sure there's a way he can do it without giving away your identity. All he has to do is reveal your gender. THAT'S what I'm thinking. How about it? Can we have your permission to do that? "

To To Joan wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:04 AM:

" How did Joan attempt to skirt the issue? She flat out stated she is a woman. It is you who made all these funny little comments, with no proof, accusing her of not being one. She should know, right? "

Joan wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:31 AM:

" See my 8:59am post. You asserted 2 different things that contradict each other in 2 different posts. So, that is proof you are a liar. And no, silly, I can't prove(on this blog, anyway) that I am a woman. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not. Maybe take some courses in logic(logic 101 at UWL?) What are you thinking? "

To Joan wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Interesting that your now calling me the liar. I never claimed to be a lady and you did. I don't believe you and you tried to skirt the issue. Probably going by the name Wow and cagefighter too. Can we prove your a lady then? If you are I'll apologize and then walk away with my tail between my legs. If your not a lady your a liar and a fraud. What say you? "

Joan wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:59 AM:

" In your 10:44 pm post, you said I did answer your question and you even acknowledged that I was honest. Now, you are contradicting yourself. So, in one of your 2 posts, you lied. Just as you lied about me not being a lady. So, me thinks I won't be taking any lessons regarding honesty from you. As I stated, if you don't wish to answer my questions, that is cool. Take care. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:25 PM:

" No, because you lied about being a lady. If you can't tell the truth why should anybody answer any of your questions? If you can't be honest with everyone on here at least be honest with yourself. "

Joan wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Cool. Now, if you care to take a stab at my questions, I am all ears(or, all eyes as it were). If not, that is fine too. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:44 PM:

" I think you just answered my question. Just as I figured. You see, that's all you have to be is honest. "

Joan wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Please answer my question and the question by the other poster-honestly. Then I will be happy to answer your questions-honestly. "

To am poster wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:39 PM:

" Come on, be honest now. Your not a woman are you? And that's you at 8:56 again isn't it? Come on now, be honest. "

to eight thirty five pm wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:56 AM:

" You're killing me here! How could you possibly know what every single lady on the face of the planet would or would not say? My, we sure think highly of ourselves, don't we? "

Joan wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:31 AM:

" Out of curiosity, what makes you think no lady would make a comment that way? Please elaborate. "

To Joan wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Because no lady would make a comment that way. "

Joan wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:30 AM:

" My post states I am a lady. How would that "confirm" I am not a woman? "

To eight twenty one am poster wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Your last post just confirmed what I said all along. You are not a woman. However, in your dreams... "

Joan wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:21 AM:

" No, honest. I never fought in a cage. I am once, twice, three times a lady! "

To Cagefighter Joan wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:29 PM:

" Yea, right. "

Cagefighter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Joan and I!!?? Me AS Joan?! Hardly. "

Joan wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Are you crazy!? I have never fought in a cage! What's wrong with you people? "

Michael Welch Made A Hell Of Heaven... wrote on Aug 2, 2008 11:25 AM:

" I accept the human penchant for endless destruction; it happens all the time; I cannot prevent it. The wars are popular, then unpopular, but it never matters; they go on because no one could possibly stop them. One war 'ends' after a decade and by the next the society is practically 'itching' to have another; the rich can't get richer and the poor poorer without them. Yeah go ahead -- let fathers kill sons and sons kill fathers and we'll hardly notice that ANYTHING has changed because nothing really does. The hell with it I say and I say that's exactly what we are achieving: we have in fact made a 'hell' of our 'heaven'... "

To Planet wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:30 PM:

" Your really clever posting as "Joan" now. Why don't you try just one moniker? I'll bet your other one is "cagefighter"! "

harsch wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:56 PM:

" He went to buy a pack of cigarettes and never came back. In other words, answer my opossum question before you accuse Welch of dodging 'questions'. "

Planet to Michael wrote on Aug 1, 2008 3:05 PM:

" I am still enjoying this little game of how many ways you can think of to not answer...no one ever said women and girls have abortions because THEY believe in fathers killing sons. The question went to what YOU believe regarding fathers not remaining fathers against their will. But, you knew that. OK, we are ready for your next non-answer. "

Joan to Michael wrote on Aug 1, 2008 3:02 PM:

" By the same token, maybe some fathers don't want to be FORCED into remaining fathers against their will. Maybe some sons don't want to be FORCED into remaining sons against their will. So, would you support THEIR right to kill in order to achieve THEIR wish? "

Michael Welch My Opponents Themselves Become Name Calling Babies... wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Now the righties have -- predictably -- degenerated into playground bullying and frustrated name calling, as ad hominem attacks are ALL they have now because the hypotheticals they propose have no relation to reality. Women and girls don't have abortions because THEY believe in fathers killing sons (though the old Roman paterfamilias did indeed have the power to order the death of ANY member of his immediate family). Women and girls don't want to be FORCED into becoming baby machines; they will seek abortions, legal or illegal, no matter what. I remember that pre Roe past; it was hypocritically unjust because those with money and connections could ALWAYS get what they wanted and the poor ALWAYS suffered the most... "

To Harsch wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Silly boy "

Harsch to Wow wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:15 AM:

" Do you believe that hedgehogs have the right to eat their young? "

To Wow wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:03 AM:

" I'll bet you sit and play World Of Warcraft every chance you get when your not blogging, right? You should get a job! "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:57 PM:

" Good one Rick. This blog needs a little humor! "

Wow wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:47 PM:

" Michael posts on every available blog and then accuses someone posting to him as stalking? I post when I see something interesting, and I see Michael skirting the issue of killing a child verses killing a criminal. I call him on it and he cries stalker. Wow. "

Dear Michael...from Harsch wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Would you support the right of a shite-kicking redneck whose pick-up runned over a opossum, breaking its neck, to get out of the truck and stomp its head to put it out of its misery? Please answer, for I am emotionally involved. "

JH wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Get a life....you mean Michael, don't you? "

To Michael wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:29 PM:

" You are being deliberately obtuse. I think what the poster was getting at is whether you would support the right of a father to kill his son so as to not remain a father, or whether you would support the right of a son to kill his father so as to not remain a son? As you said, DNA is DNA like it or not, so this would be the ONLY way to cease being a father or cease being a son, much as killing would be the ONLY way to cease being pregnant. Isn't compelling one to not kill and forcing them to remain pregnant, a father, or a son fascist and immoral? "

Get a life wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:21 PM:

" I bet most of you people have to go to the library to get online. Disability check all spent on beer, darts, and a satellite dish, can't afford a pc. "

Michael Welch Life Is Hard Enough... wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Your reduction to the absurd 'answers' nothing -- actually throughout the ages people have renounced their 'sons' and sons their 'fathers' and so on; BIOLOGICALLY of course that changes nothing as DNA is DNA like it or not. But I am FOR a society in which struggling and hapless 'fathers and sons' are not strained in the ways this overly competitive, top rules! culture we have now demands. I think yes we have a 'fascistic' structure of control -- government plus huge economic interests override ordinary folks' every day perils and leave those like Indra Book in the dust of their desperation and ignorance. Demanding some imagined literal reply to your 'question' enlightens nothing -- the government ought to HELP folks; it ought to be a refuge and resource they can turn to and trust. I am for making life easier, not harder... "

QueenB wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:43 PM:

" I can't beleive this moron is still in office. Seriously! "

To Michael wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:29 PM:

" I honestly don't remember you answering whether you think forcing someone to remain a father against their will or a son against their will is immoral and fascist. In fairness, it is you who insisted on this uhh "wording" re abortion. But now, you cry foul.... "

Michael Welch Endless Enemies Me Included... wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Also when a semi-new identity (I've seen this nomme de plume before by the way) starts 'following' me from blog to blog with the same query, that indicates 'stalking' -- ironically coinciding with the hapless 'patriot' calling for a universal boycott of Welch -- but suddenly EVERYBODY wanted Welch's attention, begging him even as they had become 'emotionally invested'!? (If poor 'pat' reappears here he'll have to change his name I guess -- how 'bout 'Texas Jack'?) I expressed some Christ-like compassion for the hated and shunned Ms Book; I attempted to understand her plight in terms other than the punishment of hell upon the wicked sinner but the 'Christian' righties embrace a rigid adversarial society of 'enemies' -- abroad, below, about; there are indeed 'endless' enemies... "

Michael Welch The Polar Express At Top Speed... wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:18 AM:

" I've answered the questions as I perceive them but the opposition argument has become merely a 'reductio ad absurdum' plus being mindlessly repetitious. Someone yesterday suggested a 'purely political' blog, which is what Jimmy's blog has become anyway, and I suppose one could well devote another blog exclusively to abortion! The 'basic' trouble is obvious -- NOTHING I say alters the anti-abortion rights fervor and frankly NOTHING they say changes MY mind. The result is this continuous 'stasis' that 'ends' (it never ends really) in these insistent, almost frantic, appeals that I respond EXACTLY as 'they' want me to -- but this harassment neither enlightens nor convinces; it only underscores what I've noted often before -- how polarized (and paralyzed?) are the political poles... "

harsch on identity wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Content analysis shows that Cagefighter and Planet are two different people unless Cagefighter is extremely cagey indeed. "

Froto wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Who cares, its over. And the next one will not learn from the previous one they never do. "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:26 AM:

" Nope. Sorry. BTW, do you post under any names besides "To Cagefighter"? "

JDF Cure wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:46 AM:

" Hopefully Stone can shed some light on Barrack Hussein Obama's support of infanticide and his Islamo-fascist roots. That would make a truly entertaining and informative movie. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:37 AM:

" What Stone did in "JFK" was to bring the truth to the masses. As a nation, we don't read much anymore, but we do go to the movies. The truth about what really happened to Kennedy has been out there for a long time, but it's been in books. Authors like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Jim Fetzer, Jim DeEugenio, Joan Mellen (to name just a few)have all laid out a convincing case for a coup d' etat. And Stone's movie did that too, but to a wide audience. That's why he is so reviled by the establishment. "

John Sidney McCain wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:14 AM:

" is getting more pathetic by the day. He said all along that he was going to take the high road. Now he ran an ad blaming the high cost of oil on Obama. I think that there is even Republicans who believe McCain is losing his mind. One of the things I hope Stones movie shows is how George W Bush destroyed John Sidney McCain during his previous campaign for President. Before this is all over I'm betting the Bush's are going to try and show McCain how it's done. High road, yea, right. "

harsch wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:08 AM:

" As for Stone, it is worth refuting the Wow(!) view because people should not be misled by the art-despising folk. JFK used artistic license primarily by using dialogue (controversial film tactic!); otherwise it was a faithful representation of an amalgam of evidence that by nature remains largely unspecific yet certain. In other words, he used very little artistic license. "

harsch wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:05 AM:

" Wow! Again: Wow! The great apes love a palindrome. Artistic license means lies! News from the tribune blog art critic. When I wrote my first novel about La Crosse, The Driftless Zone, I used the absurd, satire, and a register drifting from the highest to the Wow. Through artistic license I got across to reviewers nationwide that Wows breed like rats where the glaciers refused to go. "

To Cagefighter wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:18 PM:

" And you don't also post comments under the moniker "Planet Stasiak." Yeah, right. "

Wow wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:31 PM:

" Michael Welsh never did actually answer Tess's question. I read his song and dance posts and still don't see any answer to Tess. I'm not surprised.

I think this wonderment over a future Oliver Stone film is quite silly. Oliver Stone is an avowed left wing movie maker, not a historian for heaven's sake. A movie maker takes 'artistic liscense' (in other words, lies) to make his story work. Hollywood is about making money, not revealing truth. Oliver Stoners story about W is about as important as Paris Hilton's view of politics. "

harsch wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Interesting blog: a movie coming out in October--what do we think? What we think is whether Welch answered all the questions about abortion he should have. What we think is that a stalker is or is not someone who asks inane questions and expects an answer. What we think is that the actor portraying Papa Bush looks nothing like him. "

To Jimmy wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Not at all unusual for people on both sides to ALWAYS blame the other side. As you yourself said, all of us are commentators, not reporters: we have no obligation to be fair and balanced or unbiased. "

Cagefighter to four thirteen pm wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:30 PM:

" The movie is about George W Bush. One of the controversies surrounding Bush is his support of overturning Roe v Wade. Also, Michael referenced a previous blog, so that discussion sort of moved here. That tends to happen off and on. Also, sorry to disappoint, but this is my one and only moniker. So, other people do actually agree with me(once in awhile :) "

To Cagefighter... wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:13 PM:

" ...and all the other names you comment under. What in the heck does Oliver Stone's upcoming movie have to do with abortion? "

To Michael wrote on Jul 30, 2008 3:48 PM:

" I hardly think someone asking you questions as part of dialoguing on a blog qualifies as stalking. Heck, I haven't even seen her post here before. On the other blog you reference, you never did address these questions....by "deserting", as Jess stated, you don't cease to remain a mother or father or son or daughter. You would only cease to do so by killing, just as you would only cease to be pregnant by killing. The point, very worth exploring, is how would your "workable" morality fit into this? Isn't it fascist and immoral for the Government to force one to remain a mother or father or son or daughter OR pregnant against their will? THIS is the heart of the issue, which you shy(run) away from.... "

To Reality Check from Jimmy wrote on Jul 30, 2008 2:45 PM:

" I agree, you can't blame all of our current woes on Bush. But just once, just once, I'd like Republicans to step up to the bar and acknowledge that some of the problems we face are their fault. And, frankly, it's something I never see or hear on this blog or elsewhere, with Republicans and conservatives continuing to blame EVERYTHING on Democrats and liberals. "

Michael Welch Well Travel The Road Sharin The Load Side By --... wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Have I got a 'stalker' again? OOOOOOO! 'Texas Jess' will soon be boilin' bunnies a la Glenn Close I guess -- and HOW uh 'exhilarating' that will be eh! I did 'answer' by the way -- on another Jim blog (you'll find it -- NO DOUBT!) but frankly you're boring me. Obsession in the end becomes much less 'sinister' than silly really. But if you do wish to become my 'shadow' well okay -- Jimmy and the blogmeisters can always squeeze you in between, per below, and 'fathers!' 'mothers!' can be your comment forever and forever -- you might even, to save effort, write Ditto! a la Rush. I'll know -- why we'll ALL know -- what you mean... "

Reality check wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:57 PM:

" You can't blame everything on Bush. Our congress continues to green light the war in Iraq. Both Dems and Republicans voted for it at the start and continue to fund it. So if you're against it you can't act like Bush is a dictator and is soley responsible. Correct me if I'm wrong Jimmy. "

Michael Welch Let George DO -- Er Agree To It... wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:22 PM:

" And what's his 'fault' as far as the mess we're in, as they say? Well going along with the program really, i. e. letting Cheney, Rove and especially Rummy and the neo-con intellectuals guide him into an ideology of Democracy For All! when 'democracy' in say Iraq is shi'ite supremacy OR sunni hegemony over the SHI'ITE infidel. In Afghanistan 'democracy' is making a buck off the heroin trade WITHOUT 'government interference' -- talk about laissez faire! Teeennny tiny but ultra tough Israel is the ONLY 'US style' democracy in the mideast and 'we' didn't make them that -- the European socialist zionists did it. W's 'fault' is letting others lead him by the nose -- but then that's the 'job' of all presidents NOW... "

Texas Jess to Michael wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:21 PM:

" And, might I add on that same blog, you avoided answering some questions regarding your views. You know, Michael, I have found that a critical examination of ones views can be exhilerating. There is no need for you to avoid doing so. Contrast your claims that you would love to see the Government shut down all fast food restaurants with your claim that it would be fascist and immoral to not allow a mother to kill her child(that is, forcing her to remain pregnant if you wish to phrase it that way). Anyway, you never answered whether forcing a father to remain a father against his will, a son to remain a son against his will, etc. is also fascist? The disaster Stone or anyone else could conjure up is nothing compared to the "disaster" that is your ideal. "

Michael Welch President Whether You Like It Or Not... wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:13 PM:

" What IS 'George Bush's fault'? Personally as per Ronald Reagan his greatest 'fault' is his ignorance and lack of curiosity about the nature of the world. He lives within a narrow context, the rich kid who partied hearty and never paid the piper while others paid HIS price for him. (So why not indeed 'come to Jesus' as that's based on the same principle eh.) Either 'W' was going to be a Neil or Marvin Bush -- 'successful' at a business with connections level -- or Jeb was going to be the REAL 'junior,' the political successor to 'Poppy.' So W straightened out enough for others to 'fly' him -- well right into the twin towers so to speak and now hey 'he belongs to the ages'... "

Doc wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:48 AM:

" Stone will likely balance W's personal likability (even from those across the aisle) with a critical (and likely inaccurate) portrayal of his policies. I look forward buying a pirated copy of this! "

Starfish wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Stones real motive is to have an impact on the November elections? Uh: so what? Since when isn't that allowed?

What is with these guys? "

Michael Welch Frank Capra John Ford Robert Altman Oliver Stone... wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Well the other day I praised to the skies both Stone's 'JFK' and 'Nixon' as great (national) 'disaster' films; in fact I think Oliver Stone is the most intelligent and perceptive American movie maker going right now, one who will be heralded as are Frank Capra, John Ford, George Stevens and Robert Altman (to name just a FEW of the MANY really 'great' US directors) as a distinct and sharp portrayer of American 'life' and culture in the cold war-post cold war era. I can't wait to see 'W'; I imagine both 'Bugs Raplin' and I will be sitting in that 'front row,' eyes fixated... "

Barack Hussein Obama wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Why, this is hollywood. Of course everything that is wrong in this world will be portrayed as being the fault of George W Bush. Hurricanes, damaged bridges, floods, no rain, too much rain-all Geoorges fault. The problem is, people need to embrace the hope of change. The hope of change. "

Alowishus Habighorst wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Stone was taken to task for inaccuracies in "JFK" but a careful review of what I call the most important movie ever made, revealed that Stone got it right. I expect he'll also get it right with "W". "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »